Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Meneghello
Case
•
[2013] NSWCA 264
•15 August 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Meneghello [2013] NSWCA 264
[2013] NSWCA 264
15 August 2013
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a judgment of the District Court which found in favour of the respondent, Ms Meneghello, who had suffered injury after falling in a Coles supermarket. The dispute concerned whether Coles was liable in negligence for Ms Meneghello's fall, which she alleged was caused by small pieces of cardboard on the floor.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether Ms Meneghello had established that she trod on the cardboard and, crucially, whether the cardboard constituted a slip hazard that caused her fall. The court also had to consider the assessment of damages, particularly in light of conflicting medical evidence regarding the severity of Ms Meneghello's injuries and her consequent loss of earning capacity.
The Court of Appeal found that Ms Meneghello had not discharged the onus of proving that the cardboard was the cause of her fall, nor that it presented a slip hazard. The evidence did not sufficiently establish a causal link between the presence of the cardboard and the fall. Furthermore, the court determined that the assessment of damages by the District Court was not supportable, finding that the awarded percentage of a most extreme case was not justified by the evidence, and the findings as to loss of earning capacity were also not sustainable.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and orders of the District Court, and ordered that the proceedings in the District Court be dismissed with costs. The respondent was also ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether Ms Meneghello had established that she trod on the cardboard and, crucially, whether the cardboard constituted a slip hazard that caused her fall. The court also had to consider the assessment of damages, particularly in light of conflicting medical evidence regarding the severity of Ms Meneghello's injuries and her consequent loss of earning capacity.
The Court of Appeal found that Ms Meneghello had not discharged the onus of proving that the cardboard was the cause of her fall, nor that it presented a slip hazard. The evidence did not sufficiently establish a causal link between the presence of the cardboard and the fall. Furthermore, the court determined that the assessment of damages by the District Court was not supportable, finding that the awarded percentage of a most extreme case was not justified by the evidence, and the findings as to loss of earning capacity were also not sustainable.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and orders of the District Court, and ordered that the proceedings in the District Court be dismissed with costs. The respondent was also ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Negligence & Tort
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Causation
-
Damages
-
Negligence
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Dolbel v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPIC 290
Cases Citing This Decision
12
White v Redding
[2019] NSWCA 152
Jackson v McDonald's Australia Ltd
[2014] NSWCA 162
Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd v Howarth
[2013] NSWCA 370
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
1
Strong v Woolworths Ltd
[2012] HCA 5
Luxton v Vines
[1952] HCA 19
Jones v Dunkel
[1959] HCA 8